Comments on: A Rallying Cry For Virginia, And For Decencyhttps://www.catholicvote.org/a-rallying-cry-for-virginia-and-for-decency/
Tue, 31 Mar 2015 20:43:46 +0000hourly1By: Michael V. Clementzhttps://www.catholicvote.org/a-rallying-cry-for-virginia-and-for-decency/comment-page-1/#comment-253654
Michael V. ClementzTue, 05 Nov 2013 00:34:27 +0000http://www.catholicvote.org/?p=55489#comment-253654The battle for our votes and our rights-the democratic [left] was going to accuse the conservatives, and try to obliterate their views with technocratic schemes and vulgar vocabulary for quite some time now. It only seems to be their ‘new’ attacks that have become more viscious.
]]>By: Rob Tisinaihttps://www.catholicvote.org/a-rallying-cry-for-virginia-and-for-decency/comment-page-1/#comment-252045
Rob TisinaiFri, 01 Nov 2013 00:36:02 +0000http://www.catholicvote.org/?p=55489#comment-252045Yes, you mentioned the sodomy law, but you weren’t exactly forthright. The law would have banned oral and anal sex between consenting adults in the privacy of their home. Wonkette’s characterization is accurate, while your is — to say the least — misleading.
]]>By: Paul H.https://www.catholicvote.org/a-rallying-cry-for-virginia-and-for-decency/comment-page-1/#comment-251870
Paul H.Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:39:20 +0000http://www.catholicvote.org/?p=55489#comment-251870Why would Ron Paul endorse him? Because Ron Paul is not a “libertarian.” He’s a Republican.
]]>By: joeyhttps://www.catholicvote.org/a-rallying-cry-for-virginia-and-for-decency/comment-page-1/#comment-251380
joeyThu, 31 Oct 2013 02:09:05 +0000http://www.catholicvote.org/?p=55489#comment-251380I am from New York, not Virginia so my knowledge of his actions in Virginia are limited. Although I would agree with you on the right to life, there are Libertarians who do oppose it and regard it as women’s reproductive rights (focusing more on the freedom of choosing an abortion rather than the actual consequence of the action). If he explicitly stated that he wanted to use part of the sodomy law to protect the girl, and not attack the LGBT community, why not explicitly say so. I’m not familiar with the case at all so I may be just shooting in the dark, but why not enact a new law to protect minors. I don’t understand how a ban on oral and anal sex has anything to do with protecting minors from sexual exploitation.

Additionally, one may believe in marriage as between a man and a woman. But this notion cannot be enforced throughout, based on religious or personal views, according to Libertarian philosophy. He is assumed to be closer to aligning as libertarian than the other candidates, that is most likely why Ron Paul is endorsing him.

]]>By: Steve Skojechttps://www.catholicvote.org/a-rallying-cry-for-virginia-and-for-decency/comment-page-1/#comment-251354
Steve SkojecThu, 31 Oct 2013 01:17:47 +0000http://www.catholicvote.org/?p=55489#comment-251354I don’t see where he has ever pushed his Catholic views on non-Catholics in Virginia. Right to life is an essential liberty issue. The charges of him supporting a contraception law are made up. I’ve already made mention of the sodomy law he supported.

So what am I missing? And why would Ron Paul endorse him if he were not libertarian?

I really don’t see the logic behind this. You say that you mostly align with Libertarian views, which are generally characterized as less government involvement and more personal freedoms. I myself align with this view. However, stating that “He is being characterized as an extremist for merely living his Catholic faith.” is pretty misleading. If you are a libertarian, you should believe that a Catholic politician should not push his own views onto others, nor enact laws based on his views for everyone else. His living a Catholic lifestyle is fine. It opposes libertarianism completely to enforce that on everyone else. Non-Catholics exist in Virginia.